MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313646275 · doi:10.1080/00310328.2022.2122311

The Level V City Wall at Lachish

2023· article· en· W4313646275 on OpenAlex
Hoo-Goo Kang, Sang-Yeup Chang, Yosef Garfınkel

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuePalestine Exploration Quarterly · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArchaeology and Historical Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFinkelstein's testReignQuarter (Canadian coin)HistoryFortificationKingdomAncient historyPanacea (medicine)ClassicsArchaeologyPhilosophyLawPolitical scienceGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a recent article published in this journal (Finkelstein 2020, PEQ 152, 85–93), newly published data on Level V at Tel Lachish was criticized. This new data indicates that Level V was a fortified city and that radiometric dating places its construction in the last quarter of the 10th century bce. This date is in accordance with the biblical tradition describing the fortification of Lachish during the reign of King Rehoboam of the Kingdom of Judah in the last quarter of the 10th century bce (2 Chr 11:5–12). In the past, various scholars have proposed dating the list of Rehoboam’s fortification to the reigns of later kings: Hezekiah, Josiah or even John Hyrcanus I. It is thus not surprising that Israel Finkelstein, an advocate of a later date, attempts to refute this new archaeological data.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.720
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.142
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.123 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it